Paradigmatic consequences of the suffixing preference

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Studies in Language Pub Date : 2021-07-26 DOI:10.1075/SL.20019.BER
T. Berg
{"title":"Paradigmatic consequences of the suffixing preference","authors":"T. Berg","doi":"10.1075/SL.20019.BER","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nAs one of the most robust typological findings, the suffixing preference captures the empirical observation that grammatical categories are more likely to be coded by suffixes than by prefixes. The goal of this contribution is to explore the effects that this asymmetry may have on the inflectional paradigms of the languages of the world. Three empirical issues are addressed: do languages with either possessive prefixes or suffixes and languages with both possessive prefixes and suffixes differ in their suffix-to-prefix ratio? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in the number of cases that they code? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in their probability of explicit singular in addition to plural marking? The answer to all three questions is in the affirmative. These effects are understood in terms of a response to an inherent disadvantage of prefixes. Morphological systems reduce the processing difficulty incurred by prefixes by assigning them fewer tasks (i.e. number of cases), by limiting their occurrence in highly competitive contexts (i.e. inconsistent possessive-affix coding) and by creating prefix paradigms, which are conceived of as protective structures in which the individual members strengthen one another. The general claim these three effects lead up to is that morphological systems develop “repair strategies” which reduce the processing cost involved in using inherently disadvantaged units. These repair strategies shape morphological structure.","PeriodicalId":46377,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/SL.20019.BER","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

As one of the most robust typological findings, the suffixing preference captures the empirical observation that grammatical categories are more likely to be coded by suffixes than by prefixes. The goal of this contribution is to explore the effects that this asymmetry may have on the inflectional paradigms of the languages of the world. Three empirical issues are addressed: do languages with either possessive prefixes or suffixes and languages with both possessive prefixes and suffixes differ in their suffix-to-prefix ratio? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in the number of cases that they code? Do prefixes and suffixes differ in their probability of explicit singular in addition to plural marking? The answer to all three questions is in the affirmative. These effects are understood in terms of a response to an inherent disadvantage of prefixes. Morphological systems reduce the processing difficulty incurred by prefixes by assigning them fewer tasks (i.e. number of cases), by limiting their occurrence in highly competitive contexts (i.e. inconsistent possessive-affix coding) and by creating prefix paradigms, which are conceived of as protective structures in which the individual members strengthen one another. The general claim these three effects lead up to is that morphological systems develop “repair strategies” which reduce the processing cost involved in using inherently disadvantaged units. These repair strategies shape morphological structure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后缀偏好的聚合结果
作为最有力的类型学发现之一,后缀偏好抓住了经验观察,即语法类别更有可能由后缀而不是前缀编码。这篇文章的目的是探讨这种不对称性对世界语言屈折范式的影响。本文解决了三个经验性问题:具有所有格前缀或后缀的语言和具有所有格前缀和后缀的语言在后缀与前缀的比例上是否有所不同?前缀和后缀编码的用例数量不同吗?前缀和后缀除了复数标记外,是否在其明确的单数概率上有所不同?这三个问题的答案都是肯定的。这些影响可以理解为对前缀固有缺点的反应。形态学系统通过分配较少的任务(即案例数量)、限制其在高度竞争的语境中出现(即不一致的所有格-词缀编码)以及创建前缀范式(被认为是个体成员相互加强的保护结构)来减少前缀所产生的处理困难。这三种效应导致的一般主张是形态系统开发了“修复策略”,减少了使用固有劣势单位所涉及的处理成本。这些修复策略塑造了形态结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Studies in Language provides a forum for the discussion of issues in contemporary linguistics from discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological perspectives. Areas of central concern are: discourse grammar; syntactic, morphological and semantic universals; pragmatics; grammaticalization and grammaticalization theory; and the description of problems in individual languages from a discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological perspective. Special emphasis is placed on works which contribute to the development of discourse-pragmatic, functional, and typological theory and which explore the application of empirical methodology to the analysis of grammar.
期刊最新文献
Morphosyntactic retention and innovation in Sheng, a youth language or stylect of Kenya Discontinuous past interpretation in Abaza What can be said? Inflection class interactions and valency changes in Matlatzinca Asymmetry in temporal specification between affirmation and negation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1